What is actually real in Objective Reality? How do you know? Now, prove it's real!

"The meaning of the world is the separation of wish and fact." - KURT GÖDEL

"According to Peirce's doctrine of fallibilism, the conclusions of science are always tentative. The rationality of the scientific method does not depend on the certainty of its conclusions, but on its self-corrective character: by continued application of the method science can detect and correct its own mistakes, and thus eventually lead to the discovery of truth".

Meta

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 450 other followers

Visitors

Advertisements

"Two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness." - Alfred Korzybski

"Science is a search for basic truths about the Universe, a search which develops statements that appear to describe how the Universe works, but which are subject to correction, revision, adjustment, or even outright rejection, upon the presentation of better or conflicting evidence." - James Randi

"Hypotheses are nets: only he who casts will catch." - Novalis

"Nullius in verba. Take no one's word for it." - Motto of the Royal Society

"I'm trying to find out NOT how Nature could be, but how Nature IS." - Richard Feynman

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." - Thomas Henry Huxley

“A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.” Albert Einstein

"Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism - and is therefore one of the keys to human social and civic decency." - Stephen Jay Gould

"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." - James Randi

Archive for the ‘Proofs Needed’ Category

It ain’t over till the fat lady Neutrina sings again in a number of encore performances around the world, aka “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (to borrow a principle from Carl Sagan).

A quick summary of the alleged discovery of slightly faster than light neutrinos:

CERN’s Antonio Ereditato does a brief BBC Inteview.

“[The following] is the live Webcast from CERN on Friday September 23, 2011. Given the potential far-reaching consequences of the OPERA experiment — which observes a neutrino beam from CERN 730 km away at Italy’s INFN Gran Sasso Laboratory, indicating that the neutrinos travel at a velocity 20 parts per million above the speed of light — independent measurements are needed before the effect can either be refuted or firmly established, according to a CERN statement just issued. The OPERA collaboration has therefore decided to open the result to broader scrutiny.”Read the rest of this entry »

Sorry Sir Paul Maxime Nurse, PRS (President of the Royal Society), in science funded by the public purse you’ve got to show your work when asked for it. If there are any scientists who refuse to show their work they can expect to get Freedom Of Information Requests. All they have to do is put their work with all the full details fully documented so that their entire paper including all data and details of experiments can be replicated step by step up on their research lab’s web site so that their work can be verified, corrected or refuted in part or in whole. It’s all very easy if they have already done their science carefully!

“Show and justify your work”: If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen, and if you can’t stand skepticism about your methodology, assumptions, and analyses get out of science — go into religion. – Indur M. Goklany, Science and technology policy analyst, United States Department of the Interior, Represented the United States at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and during the negotiations that led to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

But no Sir Paul Maxime Nurse, the all mighty and all powerful President of the Royal Society wants scientists to abandon and give up the scientific method. If you hide data or details of your papers that are required to replicate the alleged claims then expect to be challenged on it especially when the alleged claims have a significant impact upon the public purse or policy.

“Freedom of information laws are being misused to harass scientists and should be re-examined by the government, according to the president of the Royal Society.” – Guardian

Woops, can’t do that as it’s in violation of the rules of the scientific method and you should know better than that Sir Paul Maxime Nurse. Heck your own Royal Society says:

These climate scientists bust a move violating the scientific method and the philosophy of science with their CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture Prophetic rhetoric.

The amazing thing is that they seem to be utterly oblivious to the ethical violations of the scientific method they are committing against the philosophy of science. Their smug arrogance isn’t even he worst part.

“Nullis in verba. Take no one’s word for it.” – Motto of the Royal Society

In a FREE society people are free to “believe” or “not believe” any claim of science, however BOTH are making a mistake!!!

Belief: taking as true (or false) that which you have no evidence for; basing your belief upon faith or trust (another form of faith).

Belief has NOTHING to do with science, belief is a process of the mind that takes things on faith rather than evidence that can be verified, preferably by each person or in a basic science class room.Read the rest of this entry »

Hold on, the PDF file is NOT just a bit map, the background pattern is just that with other images and items LAYERED on top of it. In other works it’s not one image it’s a composite set of images in the PDF document! For example there are multiple items making up the black parts of the image, the signature block at the bottom is clearly a bit map while the lines and labels seem to be text or other bit maps that highlight white while being drawn! This gets more interesting.

You can see this by saving the PDF and opening it in Adobe PDF Reader then resizing the window and watching it redraw, it redraws in layers a piece at a time quickly. Hmmm….

Could be just the way they do it in Hawaii… but it’s not just a scan of an image. This would also explain how they can easily get multiple different backgrounds, as that could easily be removed or changed with a PDF editing program!

Just the observed facts with questions. Please don’t shoot the messenger. I’m Canadian and really have no vested interest in this one way or the other, just curious about it.

Looking back in time at the Mean Sea Level graphs from the University of Colorado I noticed some things that bother me about their graphs and the manner of their presentation. Some serious questions where raised.

I made this slow 2 second blink comparison movie (it speeds up at the end) of two graphs from sealevel.colorado.edu to visually compare a noticeable change in plotting and data from 20041119 and about a month later on 20041223. The graph format changed and possibly the data points where changed or deleted.

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact.” – Charles Darwin

Reprint from the NZ CLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 257, NOVEMBER 28th 2010.

ANATOMY OF CLIMATE FRAUD
by Vincent Gray

Environmentalists believe that humans are destroying the earth (or as they prefer to call it,“the planet”), and they routinely manipulate news items that can be distorted to support their views. “Resources” are being “depleted”, oil is about to run out, everything is about to become extinct, all chemicals are “toxic” and all human activities must be prevented because they “damage the environment”

The “greenhouse effect” was a golden opportunity to blame every climate event on humans and prevent many classes of industrial activity.

The “greenhouse effect is a real physical phenomenon, although it has nothing to do with what happens in a greenhouse. A greenhouse inhibits convection and confines the air warned by contact with the ground that has been heated by the sun’s radiation.

The “greenhouse effect” results from absorption of part of the infra red radiation from the earth by several trace gases in the atmosphere, causing an increase in the surface temperature of the earth,

In order to show that there are increases in this effect caused by humans which are damaging the climate several propositions had to be proved.

Let’s explore this by way of two very interesting conversations, one from philosopher and physicist Paul Davies and the other from Stephen Wolfram.

Philosopher and physicist Paul Davies give a fascinating and thought-provoking talk on the possibility of an ultimate explanation for our universe. Dismissing the multiverse and God, he outlines an idea for finding an explanation for the universe and physical laws within the universe itself.

“Adnan Oktar (born Ankara, February 2, 1956), also known by his pen name, Harun Yahya, is a Turkish proponent of Islamic creationism, anti-Zionism,[1] and, more particularly, supports Old Earth creationism.[2][3] Oktar denounces Zionism as racism and Freemasonry, and Darwinism as the source of terrorism.[4] He has created controversies in the past few years by sending out thousands of unsolicited texts advocating Islam and creationism to schools and colleges in several European countries and USA.[3][5] Oktar had defended his views by litigation; he is responsible for the blocking of numerous, high-profile Web sites in Turkey.Read the rest of this entry »

‎”Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, science is belief in the presence of evidence.” ‘When the evidence disagrees with a scientific proposition, the proposition is discarded. When the evidence disagrees with a religious proposition, the evidence is﻿ thrown out’. – Victor J. Stenger

I work to eliminate belief and faith from my life, now I’m not talking about the “belief” that I left my car parked in it’s spot and whether or not it’s still there, I know I left it there but it’s possible that it is no longer there for a variety of reasons all possible within the known limits of objective reality. I’m talking about the kind of belief and faith that asserts “truths” or “facts” or “aspects” of the objective reality of Nature, about the very nature of Nature itself without any evidence to stand on. That is the kind of belief and faith that is the most pernicious and dangerous. I prefer knowledge that can be verified or proven with hard evidence or even better, proven with experiment done by yourself.

The problem is that the word “belief” has SO many meanings and people often don’t mean the same thing by the word. In addition when talking with “believers” it’s a huge pile of dogma that you’re taking about when you use the word “belief”, it’s not just one belief.
The point Stegner is making is which determines what you accept as real, the faith based beliefs and dogma, or the hard evidence? If the beliefs and dogma determine what is real, that is religion, that is highly dangerous, that is what leads to delusions. If the evidence determines what is real that is science, that is rationality, that is being connected with the objective reality of Nature where we actually exist.

Of course it all hinges on what the evidence is. There is good evidence and then there is bad evidence and faulty proofs.Read the rest of this entry »

The 16 January 2010 issue of New Scientist is really interesting as New Scientist admit that they published “non peer reviewed speculations” as if it was science (rather than soothsaying) and that those speculations were treated as if they were peer reviewed science by the politicians who run the IPCC panel and produce the Alarmist Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change Hypothesis (that has now been falsified in so many ways). Now let’s get into it.

[Update 20100119: It’s fine if a science magazine publishes “speculation” AS LONG AS it is so labeled! If it’s not labeled as a “speculative possibility” without any evidence then the readers might be inclined to “blindly accept it on faith or trust” or to accept it “on authority” as seems to have happened with the Himalayan Glaciers are Melting Doom and Gloom. New Scientist does have cache as an allegedly authoritative (to some degree) science publication, at least in some circles. As such it is their responsibility to indicate accurately as possible the evidence available for any particular hypothesis. One way science rags such as New Scientist, Nature, Scientific American, Discover, Popular Science, et. al. fall down is in not presenting opposing hypotheses or contrary evidence that falsifies the hypothesis. By only presenting the one side a rosy picture is transmitted into the minds of many of their readers not all of whom have the time nor inclination nor skills to dig deeper. That failure is on the shoulders of the editors and policy makers of those rags. – pwl]

New Scientist magazine’s unnamed Editors write:

Sifting climate facts from speculation
IT WAS a dramatic declaration: glaciers across much of the Himalayas may be gone by 2035. When New Scientist heard this comment from a leading Indian glaciologist [Syed Hasnain], we reported it. That was in 1999. The claim later appeared in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent report – and it turns out that our article is the primary published source. The glaciologist has never submitted what he says was a speculative comment for peer review – and most of his peers strongly dispute it. ” – New Scientist magazine, 16 January 2010, page 3

In the article Fred Pearce writes:

A decade ago, New Scientist reported (5 June 1999, p 18) a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035. Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, has never repeated the prediction in a peer reviewed journal, and now says it was ” speculative”. – Fred Pearce, New Scientist magazine, 16 January 2010, page 11

So the glaciologist who made the comments and New Scientist are both backpedaling their claims which amount to nothing more than the equivalent of soothsaying the future. Shame, shame, shame. When scientists peddle “predictions” without sufficient hard evidence what really is the difference between what they are doing and soothsaying from dead tree entrails? Nothing really.

“So how could such speculation have become an IPCC “finding” which has, moreover, recently been defended by the panel’s chairman [Rajendra Pachauri]?” – New Scientist magazine, 16 January 2010, page 3

You’re kidding right? Rajendra Pachauri is a politician and will attempt to use anything regardless of how verified it is to support his political agenda and personal wealth accumulation agenda as his recently revealed conflicts of interest demonstrate! This shows that the Editors of New Scientist clearly fail to see the highly political nature of the alleged AGW Hypothesis. Are the editors still under the delusion that climate science is a pure science without being driven by a hard core polarized political movement? I can’t believe they are that naive, can you?

“We are entitled to an explanation, before rumour and doubt compound the damage to the image of climate science already inflicted by the leaked “climategate” emails.” – New Scientist magazine, 16 January 2010, page 3

This is a very strange item. Still attempting to unpack it’s full meaning. Thought I’d share it and see what others had to say about it.

It seems that New Scientist, unnamed author, is backpedaling a published claim that was being propagandized by the chief politician of the IPCC to support the political non-science based AGW hypothesis agenda.

The Earth’s atmosphere differs in essence from that of Venus and Mars. Our atmosphere is not totally cloud-covered, as is Venus: globally, about 40% of the sky is always clear. Also we have huge ocean surfaces that serve as a practically unlimited reservoir of water vapor for the air.

With the help of these two conditions, the Earth’s atmosphere attains what the other two planets cannot: a constant, maximized, saturated greenhouse effect, so that adding more greenhouse gases to the mix will not increase the magnitude of the greenhouse effect and, therefore, will not cause any further “global warming”.

The surface temperature of Venus is hot, because the total cloud cover prevents heat from escaping to outer space. Mars’ surface is cold, because there is not enough greenhouse gas to reach the energy-saturation limit. Only the Earth has these two important features that have allowed it to maximize its greenhouse effect, completely using all available energy from the Sun.

This assertion is not a result of desk speculations. Nor is it a special hypothesis based on assumptions of limited application. It is the outcome of detailed spectral radiative-transfer analysis of huge archives of atmospheric data from NASA and elsewhere.

The project started about 25 years ago, when Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian physicist, began to write a high-resolution atmospheric radiative transfer code — a special computer program that is necessary if we want to calculate the atmosphere’s infrared radiative processes precisely.

Understanding the downwelling and upwelling long-wave fluxes in the atmosphere is essential if we are to compute the Earth’s global energy balance and its greenhouse effect accurately.

A new ruling by the Supreme Court in Canada will allow journalists and bloggers greater protection from defamation lawsuits, establishing the new defence of responsible journalism.

If sued for defamation, journalists will be able to defend themselves by proving that they acted in the public interest and that they acted in a responsible way to gather the information. This rule will still apply even if particular facts are found to be false.” – Canadian Supreme Court Strengthens Press Freedom

This covers anyone blogging from Canada. I’m not sure [but am double checking] that this might cover Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit dot Org fame (assuming he’s resident in Canada). Certainly Stephen set’s the bar for indepth scientific blogging that goes beyond what any journalists that I’ve ever read have done (with the except of a few that have authored of books). One can aim towards Stephen McIntyre’s standards and not go wrong.

British Columbia already had laws to deal with irresponsible bad drivers with cell phones being reckless or dangerous.

“MOTOR VEHICLE ACT
Copyright (c) Queen’s Printer,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 318
Part 3
Careless driving prohibited
144 (1) A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway
(a) without due care and attention,
(b) without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, or
(c) at a speed that is excessive relative to the road, traffic, visibility or weather conditions.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) (a) or (b) is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $100 and, subject to this minimum fine, section 4 of the Offence Act applies.”

“… it’s already against the law to drive without due care and attention OR with undue care and attention.” – RS

The new anti cell phone and device laws were only made to make the life of law enforcement and ICBC biased prosecutors easier.

The problem with the new anti cell phone and device law is that it alters the burden of proof from the prosecutors having to prove that a person was distracted by the use of a phone or other device and assumes that the person is guilty. This is in direct violation of the Canadian Constitution which guarantees every person in Canada the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (“11(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty …”).

This cell phone ban attempts to bypass this important constitutional protection and place the burden upon us saying that we are guilty of diminished capacity just because we were using a cell phone.

It assumes that we are guilty without proving it and thus this law is nullified and void.

On Jan 1st, 2010 the British Columbia Cell Phone and electronic device ban came into effect.

This cell phone ban really isn’t about making the roads any safer. It’s really just about ICBC having an easier time to prosecute people so that they don’t have to do any actual hard work of proving driver distraction in each case as they did last week.

Now ICBC can just magically say that you were distracted without having to actually prove it in your case. That makes their job so much easier that it’s not funny. As a bonus ICBC won’t have to pay for your claim since you’re guilty of a crime by default if you were using a device in your car.

One reason that this law is unconstitutional is that in Canada we have the right to be presumed innocent until we are proven guilty (“11(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty …”). This cell phone ban attempts to by pass this important constitutional protection and place the burden upon us saying that we are guilty of diminished capacity just because we were using a cell phone in our hands rather than in a speaker mode. In effect we’ll have to prove that were are not guilty of the assumed crime of diminished capacity or loss of focus or however they magically word it in sly tongued legalese.

The CULT of the Police State deepens in a disturbing way in British Columbia, Canada as of 1 Jan 2010.

It’s going to take a pretty creative excuse to get out of a ticket for violating B.C.’s new distracted driver law.

Effective Jan. 1, anyone caught holding a cell phone, PDA, portable music player or other electronic device while operating a motor vehicle is eligible for a $167 ticket. If the cop can prove you were actually using it, expect three demerit points, too.

That means simply fidgeting with a portable music player while stopped at a light is now against the law, according to RCMP Staff Sgt. Al Dengis, head of Central Okanagan Traffic Services.

“All the police are required to establish is that the individual was holding onto an electronic device,” he said.

Cops don’t have to prove that the device was in use or even on at the time of the offence.

“We simply have to show that you were driving the vehicle and holding the device,” Dengis explained.

This anti-cell phone law is unconstitutional, plain and simple for it assumes that one had diminished capacity when one is using a cell phone or other device in the car while driving. I’d like them to prove that I had diminished capacity even once while using a cell phone at any time for the past two decades.

Sure if a person is in an accident and it can be shown that a cell phone or a distraction was occurring and that that caused the accident that is one thing and the proper burden of proof of a contributing factor.

Failing an actual problem, such as an accident, it is well neigh impossible for them to prove that a driver has “diminished capacity” just because they were using a cell phone. It’s not like the case of alcohol.

However, to assume we are all guilty of diminished capacity just for holding a device or using a cell phone while driving is insanity and fails the burden of proof of guilt [that is required for the government to prove].

David Warren, of the Canwest News Service based in Ottawa, Canada has some eloquent and biting words today for the alleged scientists of the Climategate fame. This “op ed” piece is running in papers across Canada the last few days. An extract follows, for the full article use the link provided.

It would be interesting to see some attempt to estimate the total direct cost to the world’s taxpayers of all the scare-mongering since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring first started appearing in The New Yorker magazine in June 1962.

Each scare, in turn, is packaged and marketed with more skill than the previous; each enjoys its run in the world’s headlines, and the frenetic political attention we have been watching in Copenhagen in its most advanced form. Each in turn is gradually forgotten as more facts come to light, as the apocalyptic predictions fail, as the storyline bores through repetition. And then a new scare needs to be invented.

“Anthropogenic global warming” will go the way of its predecessors, having achieved what was meant for it, in its season: the extortion of huge amounts of money by the parasites clustered around all the existing environmentalist spigots, the sinking of new bungholes into the public accounts, the creation of new big-brotherly bureaucracies to feed new vested interests and untold riches and prestige for the “settled scientists” who work the system for patronage.

But then it will be replaced with a new environmental scare narrative.

The parties are already working on “acidification of the oceans”; there were loose ends from Rio ’92 on “biological diversity” and there will always be fresh water-supply issues to play with. The threat from asteroids was briefly considered, then dismissed: too hard to blame that on the free market. But the activists will come up with something, for their livelihoods depend upon it.

For this reason, I think we need, after thorough public inquiries, to bring criminal prosecutions against some of the major scientific players exposed by the recent release of e-mails and papers at the centre of the “global warming” scam. The more any percipient reader pours through those “hacked” documents, the clearer he will see the criminal intent behind the massaging of the numbers; for the masseurs in question stood to benefit directly and personally from getting “the right results.” This is, by its nature, an issue for the criminal courts.

“In the United States of America, unfortunately we [alarmists] still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate [for the ends to justify the means and thus] to have an over-representation of factual presentations [aka exaggerate aka lie aka ignore counter evidence aka commit fraud] on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore in an interview.”

I wonder if there will come a time when Al Gore is so marginalized for this cult of doom views that he’s stop spouting this nonsense. Maybe criminal charges against him for yelling fire (aka global warming) in crowded movie theaters world wide would be effective.

Of course it’s obvious now that Al Gore’s business interests in Generational Investment Management aka Blood & Gore (yes his business partner’s name is David Blood, really) are what is driving Al Gore’s continual doom and gloom marketing spin trip.

“In the United States of America, unfortunately we [alarmists] still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate [for the ends to justify the means and thus] to have an over-representation of factual presentations [aka exaggerate aka lie aka ignore counter evidence aka commit fraud] on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore in an interview.”

How can he make this claim that these glaciers are melting due to the man make global warming climate change hypothesis?

What is EVIDENCE Al Gore? Please be very specific and show all your work!

Thrice FOUR times CAUGHT ON TAPE people have been removed who asked inconvenient questions of climate alarmists; in two cases one person each, in one case three people, and now in the FOURTH case the journalists microphone was destroyed by a security guard! That’s five four people being forcibly removed and their questions avoided by climate alarmists. The journalist has tried on THREE separate occasions now to ask Al Gore questions which Al Gore refuses to answer.

Let’s see the evil anti-scientific deeds of the climate alarmists. Evil because they use force or the threat of force to remove people who’s questions they don’t like.

In this episode of avoid the reality based questions the climate alarmist Al Gore has the conference organizers force the questioner out.

The director of “Not Evil, Just Wrong,” a documentary challenging Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” dares to ask a question at the Society of Environmental Journalists annual conference. Apparently Mr. Gore only allows the ‘right kind’ of questions to be asked of him.

The following is the newest and third incident involving Al Gore refusing to answer questions from journalist Phelim McAleer that has been caught on tape. This time a security guard destroyed the journalist’s microphone! Is it only time before we see Blood and Gore?

This next incident is one of the more egregious incidents caught on tape so far as three men are assaulted as they are forcibly removed by Al Gore’s security personnel (likely secret service?). All it took was one subtle glance by Al Gore to the security guy and the assaults against the questioners began.

CHICAGO IL On Tuesday, November 24th 2009, We Are Change Chicago attended a book signing with former vice president Al Gore, at the Borders Bookstore on 150 N. State Street.

When will these climate alarmists who are using force and the elimination of speech to avoid answering realiyt based questions of their alarmist claims?

Remember in science those making the claims are the ones obligated to answer all challenges if they don’t want their hypothesis falsified. By avoiding the questions the are in essence admitting that their hypothesis has been falsified.

Very cool tool from visualizing data from NASA satellites in 3d in a web browser.

What I’m interested in is not just the visualization aspect but the actual data behind the visualizations since as we know from the Climategate confirmations of scientific fraud in climate science visual images can be highly misleading towards the alleged scientists point of view. Raw data please. All manipulations MUST be FULLY documented with the software source code that made the changes and detailed reasons listed for all adjustments.

If we are to raise our knowledge, skills and competence in using the scientific method to study the Earth, Moon, Sol and other relevant systems we must do some basic learning. Hard science requires making use of hard data without cheating and with showing ones data and any adjustments with justifications and open source code for auditing and proper open peer reviews!

Now let’s see what we can learn from this 3d puppy. My favorite is the GRACE Gravity satellites.

I’ve often wondered what impact the uneven gravity has on the Earth’s climate systems and if the gravity effects are taken into account in the so called climate models. As you can see from the above video the Earth isn’t even an oblate spheroid, it’s a really bumpy place when it comes to gravity. This must impact the weather and thus the climate systems as the atmosphere and water and ice move about.

What amazes me is that they think they can find the causes in such a complex system and assign with any accuracy the percentage warming from each of their selected causes of warming or cooling or staying the same.

December 7th, 2009, a day that will go down in infamy! Not allowed to exhale anymore. You can inhale but no exhaling anymore. No running. No exercise. No mice that roar! Nope, can’t have CO2. Grrr… Arrrgg…

Scientific hypotheses are supposed to fall when they fail to make predictions and another hypothesis comes along that can predict better.

The AGW Hypothesis has failed to predict the cooling trend and now they are looking to explain it after their hypothesis was falsified by Mother Nature.

The Solar Weather Technique gets better results! Sometimes as accurate as 85% a year or so into the future! Now that’s impressive. What’s even more impressive is that he tracks his successes and failures to learn from them! Wait? A scientist learning from his failures? Seriously wow, epic!

The fact that the AGW Hypothesis Alarmist crowd keeps having varying explanations indicates that they hypothesis has once again failed as it shows little if any predictive powers beyond soothsaying with dead tree entrails!

It’s “manN made ” since Michael Mann, one of the primary Climategate alleged scientists, invented the hockey stick graph used in Al Gore’s science fiction film used to cry wolf and fire in crowded theaters everywhere. When we say he “invented” the graph that is saying he “made it up” as in faked the data with his fellow alleged climate scientists, Phil Jones, et. al.. They cooked the data books! They falsified the data which also happens to falsifies their hypothesis as well.

George Orwell never imagined that the Mad Men of Madison Avenue would get involved in masterful media manipulation.

Don’t fall for their end of the world propaganda. Water World is a fictional film as is An Inconvenient Truth.

“Nullis in verba. Take no one’s word for it.” – Motto of the Royal Society since 1660!

Ask, no demand, to be shown the evidence for AGW. Take no one’s word for Mann-Made Global Warming Climate Change! Ask for the hard factual verifiable (that’s always the part that is missing) evidence! Where is the proof? Don’t just tell us that there are mountains of evidence, that isn’t acceptable since it’s just your word for it. SHOW the evidence. Show the mountain of proof. Show the data. Show the calculations. Open the climate science to public scrutiny. Prove it don’t attempt to sell it! I need proof and evidence that the soothsayers of climatic doom are actually have a predictive science rather than just readings of dead tree entrails!

“Bad explanations are easy to vary while good explanations are hard to vary.” – David Deutsch

The key issue with an theory whether it’s a myth or a scientific theory is that not only must it have testable predictions but more importantly it’s “explanation” of objective reality must be hard to vary; in other words, there can’t be many or any variations of the explanation. The narrower the explanation that has success making predictions the closer that hypothesis (theory) is to objective reality. The more variants to the hypothesis (theory) that have as accurate (or inaccurate as the case may be) predictive power the less likely those hypotheses (or theories) have to do with objective reality.

For example, Newton’s Gravitation Theory is very accurate and has tremendous success with predictions however it was long known that it failed in some cases. Einstein came along and filled in that gap with a more accurate theory, General and Special Relativity.

Slice and dice, Occam’s Razor now has a corollary in “bad explanations are easy to vary while good explanations are hard to vary”.

One of the four strands of reality inThe Fabric of Realityis the strand of “Karl Popper’s epistemology, especially its anti-inductivism and its requiring a realist (non-instrumental) interpretation of scientific theories, and its emphasis on taking seriously those bold conjectures that resist falsification.“

We have seen Noam Chomsky’s principle of “Manufacturing Consent” working with the Climategate criminals Jones, Mann, et. al.. A conspiracy of “values and beliefs”, an elitist clique that thought that they were above the rest of the people they worked for, us. Other scientists have this “academic” elitist bias or shared value, that says that you need not just the “qualifications” but the “right attitude” otherwise you’re “outside the group”. Einstein broke the mold as have McIntyre and others, Einstein was a “patent clerk” when he worked on his famous breakthroughs.

Now we see it with Jon Stewart. While making light of the Climategate in a really funny way he reveals his bias in that he “believes” in “global warming” when he says “does it [Climategate] disprove global warming, no”. Unfortunately it’s much more complex than Jon Stewart realizes and that his shared values and beliefs in “global warming” blind him from deeper inquiry. OR, as a masterful media perception shaper he’s doing his job of making people laugh with short segments and the Climategate is way too much to get into and his demographic also shares his values in “global warming”.

In any event the science will clearly demonstrate what’s going on as time unfolds and Nature does what she does.

What’s interesting in Jon Stewart’s masterful media play is really how good he is at it.

Following on the Watts Up With That article on Google Trends I was curious. Naturally.

Spending a few minutes with Google Trends I typed in “Monckton” and the graph of searches goes up with time while the new reports go down with time. They, the mainstream news, seems to be avoiding Christopher Monckton like the plague.

As this Google Trend (link at bottom) shows this trend graph is troubling for a number of possible reasons.

For starters it is obvious that Christopher Monckton is having an impact through Al Gore’s Intertubes and alternative sources.

It’s also clear that Monckton is being avoided by the mainstream press, at least those that are included in the Google Trends.

Could it be the “manufacturing of consent” that Noam Chomsky talks about at length where it is “shared values and beliefs” that creates the “conspiracy” to subvert certain ideas, thoughts, and people or groups, and not an explicit phone call such as Al Gore calling up his fellow board members at Google and other friends at news companies and saying “down with Monckton” in the news?

Alas it’s not a question that is likely to be answered, although we did think that before the revelations of the Climategate emails, data and programs were released which confirmed the long suspected criminal behavior of Jones, Mann, et. al. and of the fraudulent activities of AGW promoters such as Al Gore.

I do wonder though what it will take for Christopher Monckton to breakout into the mainstream news media. Maybe his attendance at the up coming Copenhagen Climate Conference (of global domination) will enable him access to the mainstream press in ways that they can’t ignore? We’ll see. It certainly will enable one to see the “shared values” of the mainstream news media in a new light.

We have seen Noam Chomsky’s principle of “Manufacturing Consent” working with the Climategate criminals Jones, Mann, et. al.. A conspiracy of “values and beliefs”, an elitist clique that thought that they were above the rest of the people they worked for, us. Other scientists have this “academic” elitist bias or shared value, that says that you need not just the “qualifications” but the “right attitude” otherwise you’re “outside the group”. Einstein broke the mold as have McIntyre and others, Einstein was a “patent clerk” when he worked on his famous breakthroughs.

I started Paths To Knowledge dot NET because I asked what seemed to me to be basic questions of the Man Made Global Warming Climate Change and instead of educating me with informative answers all I got was (1) to be vilified with personal attacks for asking the questions, and (2) told there was a mountain of research proving it.

Well, the first set of personal attack responses to basic questions to prove AGW showed me that the people weren’t being scientific but that they were “belief stricken” with beliefs that AGW was true and how dare anyone ask any questions that might question that belief. Sounded like they got AGW religion to me.

As for the mountain of evidence, people are still telling me there is a mountain of evidence but when I ask those that say that for that evidence they don’t have any. So if you have a mountain of evidence please point to it.

The purpose of asking questions is to find out.

The Climategate whistle blower sure pointed out some serious problems with the alleged mountain of evidence.

What is the difference between a soothsayer and an accurate prediction and forecasting foretelling the future weather and climate? Methodology and accuracy of results. First let’s define the terms.

A predictionis a statement or claim that a particular event will occur in the future in more certain terms than a forecast. The etymology of the word is Latin (præ-, “before,” and dicere, “to say“). Howard H. Stevenson writes: “Prediction is at least two things: Important and hard.” Important, because we have to act, and hard because we have to realize the future we want, and what is the best way to get there.

In a scientific context, a prediction is a rigorous, (often quantitative), statement forecasting what will happen under specific conditions, typically expressed in the form If A is true, then B will also be true. The scientific method is built on testing assertions which are logical consequences of scientific theories. This is done through repeatable experiments or observational studies.

A scientific theory whose assertions are not in accordance with observations and evidence will probably be rejected. Theories that make no testable predictions remain protosciences until testable predictions become known to the community.

Additionally, if new theories generate many new predictions, they are often highly valued, for they can be quickly and easily confirmed or falsified (see predictive power). In many scientific fields, desirable theories are those which predict a large number of events from relatively few underlying principles.

A soothsayeris a person who claims to speak sooth (truth or reality, smooth (political savy, gift of the gaff, able to smoothly con), or soft (the soft sell)): specifically one who predicts the future based upon personal, political, spiritual, mental, or religious beliefs rather than scientific facts.

Making up scientific facts or playing “tricks” with them to fit your theory disqualifies one from being a scientist as one is “soothsaying” and very likely committing fraud especially when claims are made that people act upon or when money is involved.

As we are learning from Climategate, clearly the AGW alarmist crowd would rather fudge the data than let the chips fall where they may. Phil Jones, Michael Mann et. al. have a lot to learn from those who accurately predict the weather and climate!

Let’s see. Here below is their infamous hockey stick graph and as the graph below it shows the actual data their success rate is, oh dear worse than zero since they faked the data… as proven with the Climategate revelations.

It seems clear that the CRU forecasts of extreme climate warming of ten years ago have been falsified (i.e. they failed) due to the FACT that the last decade has seen a decline in temperatures. When predicting weather or climate it’s not just your “hypothesis” that is important it’s the actual predictions that you make that succeed or fail to predict the future. You’ve got it wrong Phil Jones, Michael Mann et. al. as anyone can see by looking at the temperatures, and you admit it privately in the Climategate emails, have the guts to be men and publicly admit that your AGW predictions have failed!

The purple line is the rising CO2 levels and as you can see from the blue temperature graph the last decade has declined and not followed the rise in CO2. Funny that. Oh wait, that's direct evidence that the AGW hypothesis failed to predict the last decade and thus falsifies the hypothesis. Oops, darn Nature not cooperating with the hypothesis.

Well it’s the evidence shows it’s conclusive, Phil Jones, Michael Mann et. al. are soothsayers as their Hockey Stick AGW forecasts failed to predict accurately the last ten years.

It’s conclusive Piers Corbyn is on to something significant using the Solar Weather Technique to with high accuracy predict the future weather and climate. Not a soothsayer but a true scientist working his craft.

“A verification of UK gale forecasts by the ‘solar weather technique’: October 1995–September 1997
In recent years the ‘solar weather’ technique of weather forecasting which takes into account of the influence of the sun has received much attention. No attempt has hitherto been made to determine the success, or otherwise, of elements of these forecasts, which include solar predictors and are prepared 6–11 months in advance of the events they predict. This paper conducts an evaluation of these forecasts but confines attention to the prediction of gales. Skill levels are assessed over different seasons. The results, whilst differing greatly between the seasons, reveal a degree of success that cannot readily be accounted for by chance and suggest that this system of forecasting continues to be assessed over a longer time period to further investigate these findings.“

Further detailed successful results are found on the linked page above.

[Piers] Corbyn’s predictions are based on what is called “The Solar Weather Technique.”[8] The technique “combines statistical analysis of over a century of historical weather patterns with clues derived from solar observations.”[1] He considers past weather patterns and solar observations and sun-earth magnetic connectivity. Conventional meteorology claims that such influences cause minimal impact on the Earth’s atmosphere[9].

The alleged Climategate science criminals and the alleged crimes and unethical acts they committed.

If all you do is watch this one video this is the one video to watch to get a summary of what Climategate is all about.

If you’ve not heard the shocking news, the key scientists behind the main proof for human caused global warming (AGW) have had their internal emails and computer programs exposed by a whistle-blower revealing that they cooked the books to make it seem like the planet it warming.

They faked their data and committed other crimes such as deleting data when presented with a Freedom of Information Request which is a crime in Great Brittan. They are also the key players on the UN’s IPCC. The infamous Hockey Stick Graph is Al Gore’s film has now been unequivocally proven to be not just wrong but criminally faked!

The video in the article is an excellent summary of the key players and their specific crimes identified so far.

Mann’s work doesn’t meet that definition [of science], and those who use Mann’s curve in their arguments are not making a scientific argument. One of Pournelle’s Laws states “You can prove anything if you can make up your data.” I will now add another Pournelle’s Law: “You can prove anything if you can keep your algorithms secret.”
–Jerry Pournelle, 18 February 2005East Anglia Emails, 1109021312.txt

“It’s getting pretty clear what happened. These academics, who were influential in framing the UN climate report on which most of the political decisions on what to do about man-made global warming depend, became alarmed when the data over the past few years didn’t support the predictions of their models. At this point they had a choice: to accept the new data and see what that did to the theory, or simply to cover it up because they were convinced the basic theory was correct and the issue was too important to allow the theory to come under serious doubt.” – Jerry Pournell, 24 November 2009

Guess what they chose? Did they choose honoring the scientific method and follow the data where it lead? NOPE! They actually choose the Dark Side of the Forcings and the results are now revealed to all to see. As a direct result they choose to not be scientists anymore as the evidence illuminates so clearly. They choose to be political activists with a cause ignoring the actual data rather than scientists respecting the actual data. They choose alarmism rather than to properly consider the facts as they are.

“It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker [editor note: an alleged hacker although it could may well have been an internal whistle-blower with integrity and a conscience to clear – pwl] from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally [editor note: that has yet to be determined in a court of law -pwl]. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.” – George Monbiot, Humann Caused Global Warming Alarmist Science Writer and Activist, published in the Guardian, 23rd November 2009

Unfortunately I concur with Jerry Pournelle’s assessment and with the above portion of George Monboit’s comments. This is a very sad episode in the annals of science.

UPDATE 20091128: Now even members of the IPCC itself are calling to BAN these alleged Climategate science criminals from the IPCC! WOW!

Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.

A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. [Editor’s Note: Fear of reprisals from the Climategate criminals voiced in public! A paradigm shift has occurred!] My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research ‘soldiers’. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.
…I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. … The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

… I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.

… I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the ‘hockey stick graph’ or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. … They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior.

How long will it be before the resignations begin?

Phil Jones and Micheal E. Mann indite themselves in these emails. Here is one egregious sample. See the references below for the raw email files and read them for yourself.

“From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI:04:11 2008
Date: Thu May 29 11Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
have his new email address.We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!Cheers
Phil”
– 1212073451.txt

“AR4” referrers to the fourth UN IPCC Climate Assessment Report.

“According to Hazel Moffatt, a partner in the litigation and regulatory department at the law firm DLA Piper in London, deleting emails subject to a FOI request is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable with a fine. “It’s quite naughty to do that,” said Ms. Moffatt.” – As Serious As Crime.

The Climate Research Unit released a couple of press releases here and here to cover their asses in the Pernicious Climategate Scandal that is rocking their tidy deceptive world. Nice try but you fail. The very serious allegations against your group are shocking and invalidate and bring into disrepute all of your works and all works based upon your works.

The belief that the ends justifies the means may be the true root of all evil. – Troy Brumley

A prime example of how science is distorted by – likely well meaning – scientists or science educators. Deliberately or not this video is a masterful piece of propaganda pretending to be science. Credits are due to Greg Craven, the master propagandist who appears in the video.

Neither risk presented in the video is acceptable because they are a false choice and Greg Craven knows it [or he should know it as a science teacher]! His logic is flawed since he presents a “binary choice” and that is his mistake, black and white thinking. His second mistake is presenting a false dilemma when he knows the facts much better [or should know them better as a science teacher]! There are so many other choices one can choose that it’s not funny. It’s typical of many people trained in the sciences and technology, as well as the general public, to think in black and white binary terms. The universe is fuzzy people. It’s about time we realized that.

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix “di” in “dilemma” means “two”. When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (“If you are not with us, you are against us.”) But the fallacy can arise simply by accidental omission—possibly through a form of wishful thinking or ignorance—rather than by deliberate deception (“I thought we were friends, but all my friends were at my apartment last night and you weren’t there.”)

When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.

Furthermore the dark vision of doom and gloom presented by the human caused global warming alarmists is exaggerated! Even Al Gore admits that he exaggerates – lies outright – just to get people to act! It’s clear that the alarmist views are not on the same footing as a rational scientific view that can be audited and examined fully in the public eyes.

Al Gore admits that he deliberately lies to and scares people for political gain on the topic of human caused global warming climate change. His lying is so blatant that he arrogantly brags about it! Wow, mastery of propaganda is certainly a strong suit for Al Gore.

“In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore in an interview.

Steven Schneider [now deceased], [was] an alleged climate scientist who also advocates [advocated] lying to people and scaring them with outright lies for political gain. Wow what a one man propaganda machine.

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Steven Schneider, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989; for the original, together with Schneider’s commentary on it misrepresentation see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.

Schneider has been publicly criticized by fellow atmospheric scientist, Craig Bohren, for his history of self-promotion using contradictory climate scares:

“…some of the prominent global warmers of today were global coolers of not so long ago. In particular, Steven Schneider, now at Stanford, previously at NCAR, about 30 years ago was sounding the alarm about an imminent ice age. The culprit then was particles belched into the atmosphere by human activities. No matter how the climate changes he can correctly say that he predicted it. No one in the atmospheric science community has been more successful at getting publicity. NCAR used to send my department clippings from newspaper and magazine articles in which NCAR researchers were named. We’d get thick wads of clippings, almost all of which were devoted to Schneider. Perhaps global warming is bad for the rest of us, but for Schneider and others [such as Al Gore] it has been a godsend.“

More scare mongers with a deliberate lying bent where the end justifies the means, scientists, politicians and eco-warriors alike admitting they are willing to lie through their teeth to get the job done even if it’s global warming is false! Wow.

“What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
— Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

“Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.” (Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, commenting on reports that Greenland’s glaciers are melting. Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing”
(Tim Wirth 1990, former US Senator) as quoted in NCPA Brief 213; September 6, 1996

“A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect”
(Richard Benedict, US Conservation Foundation)

“We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion — guilt-free at last!”
— Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue)

Taking action can cause much worse problems for humans by rushing and taking the wrong actions. It’s very possible that the huge economic upheaval that is being caused by the rush to judgment by the alarmists will actually cause more harm than any real amount of actual warming.

Will Greg Craven, the guy in the video, take personal responsibility for all those that die in the economic turmoil of the implementation of useless “carbon solutions” for his role in presenting false dilemmas? Will he be responsible for those that die as the planet it terrorformed by his advocacy? I doubt it.

Besides the facts now show that the last ten years have been getting colder. Cold is the new warming. What? Yup. It’s getting colder which means the planet is warming. Weird, but that is what the alarmists claim.

Having an accurate assessment of the risks is crucial for any decision making process. This guy presents the situation in binary thinking and aims you towards his forgone conclusion revealing his bias. More propaganda based upon false reasoning steps and a very crude method of risk management. Since we already know that the alarmists claims are false (even they admit it) this guy is presenting a false choice on the alarmist side of the ledger.

Overall Greg Craven fails as a scientist to present the full set of known facts but passes as an effective and craven propagandist. As such Greg Craven gets a failing grade.

One Richard Feynman has this to say about falsification and full disclosure and it should be a lesson to Greg Craven and the others quoted above as Greg and the others are being schooled by Feynman indeed:

“But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves–of having utter scientific integrity–is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. “Well,” I said, “there aren’t any.” He said, “Yes, but then we won’t get support for more research of this kind.” I think that’s kind of dishonest. If you’re representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you’re doing–and if they don’t want to support you under those circumstances, then that’s their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results.

I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don’t publish such a result, it seems to me you’re not giving scientific advice. You’re being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don’t publish it at all. That’s not giving scientific advice.
…
But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of cargo cult science.
…And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?
…
So I have just one wish for you–the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom. ” – Richard Feynman, Cargo Cult Science, A Lesson From Richard Feynman For Scientists of Today to Learn

Sounds like Greg Craven needs to go back to grade ten science class and relearn the basics as long as his science teacher is someone like Richard Feynman and very unlike Greg Craven.

A detailed analysis of Greg Craven’s video “How the World Ends” (which have the same false dilemma argument) is illuminating of Greg Craven’s craven attitude towards factual science presentations.

An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.

Facts do not matter anymore as belief in global warming is now officially recognized as a nutter religion!

(All religions are anti-scientific since they require faith above facts of Nature and Nature always wins thus the supernatural religions are false).

The Religion of Climate Change

He’s close “belief in human caused climate change is a religion” but it’s not that they’ll believe in anything its’ that they put “belief” above reason and facts and they’ve been convinced by the likes of Al Gore. It is not the lack of a belief in god that is the problem it is belief itself that is the problem, belief in god, belief in climate change caused by man (aka Mann) that is the real problem. When you are willing to “believe” rather that use reason to examine the facts of Nature that is when you take the irresponsible “leap of faith” into the land of being belief stricken with something that is more likely simply wrong than even having a hint of being right. Critical thinking and reason and the scientific method and open science with peer review by anyone are the tools we need to move forward as a society. Not belief in something. Belief and faith are the great mind killers and possibly the death of civilization as well.

The Religion of Climate Change, UN Ki Moon Cult

Yes indeed, sober scientific based discussion still has it’s place. No science is ever settled. If you think climate science is settled then you don’t know about the facts of climate science as much as you think you do. Not only that, but you also don’t understand the scientific method nor science eduction. Questions are essential of all science at all stages. To suppress discussion is anti-scientific.

To make scientific questions such as “mann made climate change” into a religion based upon belief is the height of insanity and irresponsible governance by the court and anyone else.

This documentary is a good companion to the latest documentary,”The Great Global Warming Swindle” recently shown on CH 4 UK and is available on Google video. The hoax of Global Warming / Green House was exposed 19 years ago by CH 4 UK in this documentary entitled Green House Conspiracy. Those who subscribe to the rubbish trotted out by Al Gore and his mindless followers are not new they were the same arse clowns who were telling us we were all going to freeze to death 30 years ago.

What The FUCK? Almost every aspect of this video from 19 years ago is exactly the same as it is today!!!! Wow, nothing has changed. The warmies are still crying wolf. I wonder who let them out of the asylum?

Over a period of 28 hours or so this long weekend I had a conversation with someone, CK, I met on Face Book who shared a common technical interest. We had a number of other exchanges with each other over the past few months but this one was different partly for it’s brutal honesty and partly since CK choose to jump out of what was likely the most important conversation of his life.

I managed to save a copy of the conversation moments before CK deleted my access (it was on his wall) and thus ending the conversation with us two. Likely he’s busy gathering agreement with his friends that I’m an evil no good person when in fact it’s likely that I’m one of his best new friends he’s ever had. Be that as it may, here is a non edited transcript (spelling corrections were made). Oh, from what I can tell CK is a young adult male with a gay lover and a roman catholic upbringing.

I hope this helps when talking with religious delusionals of all sorts but christians in particular since we deal with dispensing the christian miracle mythologies here.

I’ll add comments and expand my responses and even critique my own responses over the next few weeks or so as I have time to reread the transcript below and think longer it.

All the best and live long and prosper in peace. Your feed back and comments are appreciated.

PWL

ps. This Jesus and Mo comic is appropriate since CK’s solution for “resolving the incompatibilities” between science and religion is to become insane by fully embracing “cognitive dissonance” and not working to resolve the conflict even though he claims to work towards that end. More on this in the conversation. He also, as you will see, negotiates his way between these two incompatibilities by accepting part of Objectivism (it’s basic three axioms of existence, identity and consciousness) while maintaining his “faithful belief” in his invisible super friends even though acknowledging that objectivism provides “proof” that there are no gods other than those in human minds. Thus CK’s religious driven insanity.

CK: just wants to find SOMEONE who shares his philosophies… lol

PWL: What philosophy are yours?

CK: Except for the stance on matters of sexuality and religion, I’m a staunch objectivist. Go Ayn Rand!

I believe cognitive dissonance is the greatest evil in the universe.

That’s a good start to the summary. In essence, I believe you must accept a small set of axioms as true, and then use inductive logic based on that. If only I could put my axioms in words… lol

PWL: I am also a big fan of Ayn Rand.

People do work well together and can in many circumstances work towards their mutual benefit.

What do you mean by cognitive dissonance?

I’m confused by your sexuality considering you seem to be very catholic… seems mutually incompatible to me.

I’m confused by your religious stance and Ayn Rand, objectivism proves that your mythical god doesn’t exist and is just an artifact of your mind wanting comfort or what not. So you’re not a staunch objectivist if you believe in the mythical invisible super beings and thus the supernatural realm.

The real world doesn’t care about our philosophies since it doesn’t care about anything.

They are not axioms if they are not in words…

BUT then Leaps of Faith know no boundaries or limits and ignore any that are pointed out. That is the essential nature of a leap of faith, it destroys actual rational thinking with the emotional non-rational leap of faith.

“Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The “ideas” or “cognitions” in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one’s behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.” – Cognitive Dissonance.

So if you believe “cognitive dissonance” is the greatest evil in the universe why do you practice it?

Why do you consider it evil?

MD: wow :{

CK: Sexuality: Rand didn’t exactly believe they should wait until they found the right one, and then stay with them the rest of their life. Yes, objectivism does reject the almighty.

When I say cognitive dissonance, I mean holding two apparently exclusive beliefs wihout batting an eye — it’s an offense to reason. In my case (objectivist Catholic), although you’d think they are exclusive, but the reason I believe they are not is that I do not blindly believe — I observe the positive effects of faith, I observe the evidence of miracles, and I make judgments for myself. I consider the beliefs and try to reason and justify them.

If I were to just say, “well, it is” THEN faith and reason would be exclusive. But to examine faith and try to reason about it, why you believe it even when you know science, then you have used reason. You just use inductive logic rather than deductive logic.

PWL: Actually you must use actual repeatable verifiable evidence not logic or some belief stricken dogma system…

As the saying goes you are mistaken about a great many things CK.

There are no real positive effects of faith that are not available without faith!

Al Gore Fortunetelling and doom-saying our future warming the planet with his actual hands waving across the big silver screen in the fantasy science fiction documentary An Inconvenient Truth and in the process breaking the anti-fortuneteller law in Maryland!

A Maryland man [Nick Nefedro] who refers to himself as a Gypsy is claiming discrimination in the case of a Bethesda, Maryland law that forbids “foretelling the future.”

In Montgomery County, Maryland, it is … illegal to accept money for “forecasting or foretelling or for pretending to forecast or foretell the future by cards, palm reading or any other scheme, practice or device.” Although the law has been on the books since the 1950’s, it is being challenged in court by Nick Nefedro, a man who claims gypsy ancestry and who wants to run a business selling his services as a fortuneteller. Nefedro was denied a business permit, and he says banning his predictions is discriminatory against his heritage. The ACLU is backing his claim.
…
A possibility that no one has discussed, however, is that Montgomery County prosecutors might insist that Mr. Nefedro prove his fortunetelling abilities. Courts have an understandable and desirable bias toward protecting free speech, but Mr. Nefedro’s free speech rights are not in danger, only his ability to take money for making predictions. If his ability is real, it should stand up to scientific testing. If it does not stand up to such testing, than it is, in simple terms, fraud.
…
In reality, fortunetelling should not be protected free speech any more than yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Whenever someone claims to make supernatural [or scientific] predictions, those claims should be subject to testing or at least subject to later review for accuracy.” – Fortunetelling Should Not Be Protected Speech

“I don’t think it’s strange for us to have laws that protect against fraud,” said Clifford Royalty, zoning division chief in the Montgomery County attorney’s office, adding that “religion [or science] has nothing to do with it. He’s not made that allegation in the lawsuit.”

“The practice is fraudulent,” Royalty said, “because no one can forecast the future.”

“it is … illegal to accept money for “forecasting or foretelling or for pretending to forecast or foretell the future by … any … scheme, practice or device.“

So this applies to ALL people claiming to FORETELL the future including weather forecasters and climate scientists who use any “scheme, practice or device” known as climate science and a computer and software to do their dirty deeds of forecasting, soothsaying and doom-saying about the end of the world scenarios brought on by Mann, oops, man, with Anthropomorphic Global Warming! Very interesting.

“The underlying purpose is to prevent people from being taken advantage of, because it’s a scam,” Clifford Royalty, a lawyer in the Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office, said.
…A federal judge upheld a similar ban in Harford County in 2002, deferring to the county’s assessment of fortunetelling as “inherently deceptive” and citing a 1976 Supreme Court decision, albeit not in a fortunetelling case, that said “untruthful speech” is not protected.” – Washington Examiner

I view the matter in a simple, direct way. If someone wants to sell their services as a fortuneteller (or any other name which means the same thing [such as climatologist or climate scientist or Al Gore]) then they should have to prove them adequate to the task. Plumbers must be able to plumb. Mechanics have to be able to fix your car. Carpenters who build your house have to be able to do the job. If they do a shoddy job, the consumer has recourse.

This means that fortunetellers [, soothsayers, doomsayers, climate scientists, weathermen, movie makers, and others predicting the future] who sell their services as genuine must be able to pass some sort of test showing that they can actually do it. Otherwise they must have a massive sign that says “WE ARE NOT REAL. THIS IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT VALUE ONLY. YOU WILL GET JUST AS GOOD ADVICE THROWING A DART AT THE PAPER.”

I have no problem with those who claim they can see the future, talk to the dead, read your aura, and so on. I merely state that in the interest of consumer protection, they must prove their competency the moment they start charging for it. – Gypsy Bad Fortune.

[W]e already have laws to protect us against fortune telling. The crime is very specific: it’s called fraud. Now we just need to get some law enforcement folks interested in prosecuting it.

So how many climate scientists are working in this part of Maryland (and by precedent potentially all of Maryland)? They are all breaking the law because they don’t hang out a sign on their door or write in their scientific papers “WE ARE NOT REAL. THIS IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT VALUE ONLY. YOU WILL GET JUST AS GOOD ADVICE THROWING A DART AT THE PAPER!”

I think that climate scientists have proven with their bad science that they are not up to the task. I wonder if Pennsylvania has a similar law to address Dr. Mann’sscientific shenanigans:?

The hockey stick debate is about two things. At a technical level it concerns a well-known study that characterized the state of the Earth’s climate over the past thousand years and seemed to prove a recent and unprecedented global warming. I will explain how the study got the results it did, examine some key flaws in the methodology and explain why the conclusions are unsupported by the data. At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing process. In view of the massive global influence of IPCC Reports, there is an urgent need to bias-proof future assessments in order to put climate policy onto a new foundation that will better serve the public interest.

So are there any people in Maryland who want to make a list of all climate scientists in the State and charge them with “fortunetelling” under the existing Maryland law?

In fact Al Gore’s fantasy film fortunetelling the future of the Earth FORETELLING DOOM and DESTRUCTION as if it really will happen was shown in Bethesda, Maryland, and the lines were very long for many months; in fact I saw it there in Montgomery County myself of all places! These quotes sum up the case against Al Gore nicely: “In Montgomery County it is … illegal to accept money for forecasting or foretelling or for pretending to forecast or foretell the future by … any … scheme, practice or device.” + “In reality, fortunetelling should not be protected free speech any more than yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” + “The practice is fraudulent because no one can forecast the future.” I trust that the staggering irony of Al Gore yelling mann caused Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW), aka FIRE, in a movie theater is not lost on you. Who wants to charge Al Gore under this law? Let’s see guesstimating 50,000 people (we need the actual statistics on this but for the sake of making this point we’ll use this guesstimate of how many) saw the movie An Inconvenient Truth in Montgomery Country in theaters and on DVD that would be 50,000 times the USD$250 fine for Al Gore violating this soothsaying aka fortunetelling law so the fine could potentially be in the range of a whopping USD$12,500,000.00. That might send a message to doomsayers, soothsayers, and climate scientists who predict the future crying wolf repeatedly without verifiable science. It also might take back some of the lucrative profits Al Gore is making by selling “carbon credits”!

Anytime science (papers in particular) is done without SHOWING ALL THE STEPS and providing all the data there is always the chance that some magic steps are involved. By magic we mean fraudulent.

I was about to start this paragraph by saying “To be serious …” but then I realized that this is actually a serious article and not a joke at all, so I’ll start it this way:

The serious nature of fraudulent claims in Climate Science MUST be addressed and those that make claims about the future that turn out to not be correct MUST be held to account for their fraudulent claims especially those that receive money for making said claims. Honest and forthrightness and the highest possible standards MUST BE achieved in Climate Science (and all other sciences) in order to protect the public from those making false claims for personal gain or out of their “beliefs” rather than out of verifiable and Open Source Science that can be vetted and tested by ANY outside party at will.

The articles linked here raise some very disturbing problems with the manner in which climate science is being conducted. This is especially important due to the HUGE public costs about to be undertaken over the next decades.

“The UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre and University of East Anglia have been refusing access to the data used for their global climate averages and scientific studies.” – slashdot

Opening Science is the way forward, the path through the darkness, the endarkenment of closed source science.

If’s it’s paid by the public purse it must be OPEN data that anyone can see and audit.

Yes, you feel certain that you are right about your science but lets see the actual data and the methods used by that science to prove that your certainty is justified.

Science is based upon the notion of being able to validate or invalidate in whole or in part the “claims” made by various “hypotheses” put forward.

When you “BELIEVE” science you’re just another religion.

When you can’t audit the work of scientists whose work is the basis of public policy then you and the public are being endarkened and kept excluded. But why? For what or whose agenda?

As long as the data, the methods, the algorithms, the statical analysis, the step by step procedures are kept secret the work is suspect to scientific fraud.

Have the guts to open your science to the light of day, it will in the end be better for it once it’s vetted by more eyes and brains and math nuts and others poking holes in it.

ANY AND ALL CLAIMS MADE BY PEOPLE WHO KEEP THEIR SCIENCE CLOSED AND SECRET is suspect of FRAUD. What are they hiding? Are they simply embarrassed to admit that they might be wrong? That they’ve made mistakes? That they are afraid that others might gain an edge in the grant process and shut them out of funding?

Open Source Science is the way forward through the darkness into the light that empower verification and falsification and thus progress EITHER way!!!

When you “BELIEVE” science you’re just another religion. In fact, open source science is the BEST and ONLY WAY to avoid science from becoming the new religion as it has, for example, in the climate debates.

The scientific method is the tool for vetting the works of science and if the work of science is closed and secret and kept close to the scientists chests by refusals to share their data, methods, source codes, procedures, etc… then their work can’t be verified and might as well be works of fiction just like those of any religious cleric or priest or nutter.

If you can’t take others vetting your scientific work then maybe you don’t belong in science?

Open Source Science raises the bar and will in the long run improve the quality of the science that is done. Some progress is being made, much more needs to be done.

Yet when asked for the data that is claimed to provide some of the evidence the data is refused on POLITICAL grounds. Very disturbing.

Regardless of the reasons that the data is not provided the bad science attitude by the MET office hinders actual science from proceeding. Very disturbing.

When you can’t test a scientific hypothesis or read all of the supporting evidence for it you must then rely on “taking their word for it” which is also known as “accepting based upon belief alone”. This is the end of science bit by bit and leads to the path of the dark side, to an age endarkenment.

When people find science open to validate themselves with experiments that they can do themselves or by reading all the evidence and vetting the work of others belief is eliminated and tested knowledge is obtained by that person bolstering the accuracy of their representation of the universe.

Belief is the enemy of science. Open Source science is the path forward that helps to eliminate belief and lay the ground work for a new scientific enlightenment accessible to the masses.

Terminate belief. Grow your knowledge based upon the scientific method. Stop being a science geek who takes it up the ass from authorities just like the religious nut jobs who take it up the ass from The Pope and his ilk.

The extremely high dilutions in homeopathy have been a main point of criticism. Homeopaths believe that the methodical dilution of a substance, beginning with a 10% or lower solution and working downwards, with shaking after each dilution, produces a therapeutically active “remedy”, in contrast to therapeutically inert water. However, homeopathic remedies are usually diluted to the point where there are no molecules from the original solution left in a dose of the final remedy.[81] Since even the longest-lived noncovalent structures in liquid water at room temperature are only stable for a few picoseconds,[87] critics have concluded that any effect that might have been present from the original substance can no longer exist.[88] No evidence of stable clusters of water molecules was found when homeopathic remedies were studied using NMR.[89]

Furthermore, since water will have been in contact with millions of different substances throughout its history, critics point out that any glass of water is therefore an extreme dilution of almost any conceivable substance, and so by drinking water one would, according to homeopathic principles, receive treatment for every imaginable condition.[90]

Practitioners of homeopathy contend that higher dilutions (fewer potential molecules in each dose) result in stronger medicinal effects. This idea is inconsistent with the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs, where the effects are dependent on the concentration of the active ingredient in the body.[82] This dose-response relationship has been confirmed in multitudinous experiments on organisms as diverse as nematodes,[91] rats,[92] and humans.[93]

Physicist Robert L. Park, former executive director of the American Physical Society, has noted that
“since the least amount of a substance in a solution is one molecule, a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth.”

Park has also noted that “to expect to get even one molecule of the ‘medicinal’ substance allegedly present in 30X pills, it would be necessary to take some two billion of them, which would total about a thousand tons of lactose plus whatever impurities the lactose contained“.

The laws of chemistry state that there is a limit to the dilution that can be made without losing the original substance altogether. This limit, which is related to Avogadro’s number, is roughly equal to homeopathic potencies of 12C or 24X (1 part in 1024).

Killing your child with the delusional beliefs of Homeopathy:

Going to jail for killing your child with the delusional beliefs of Homeopathy:

The tantalizing signs of a possible medieval Norse presence in Nunavut were found at the previously examined Nanook archeological site, about 200 km southwest of Iqaluit, where people of the now-extinct Dorset culture once occupied a stretch of Hudson Strait shoreline.

A UNESCO World Heritage site at northern Newfoundland’s L’Anse aux Meadows — about 1,500 km southeast of the Nanook dig — is the only confirmed location of a Viking settlement in North America. There, about 1,000 years ago, it’s believed a party of Norse voyagers from Greenland led by Leif Eiriksson built several sod-and-wood dwellings before abandoning their colonization attempt under threat from hostile natives they called “Skraelings.”

But over the past 10 years, research teams led by the Canadian Museum of Civilization’s chief of Arctic archeology, Pat Sutherland, have compiled evidence from field studies and archived collections that strongly suggests the Norse presence in northern Canada didn’t end with Eiriksson’s retreat from Newfoundland.

At three sites on Baffin Island, which the Norse called “Helluland” or “land of stone slabs”, and at another in northern Labrador, the researchers have documented dozens of suspected Norse artifacts such as Scandinavian-style spun yarn, distinctively notched and decorated wood objects and whetstones for sharpening knives and axes.